Operation Zero Footprint: The Bombshell Truth About Benghazi?

The following was sent to me and in turn I will do my civic duty and widen its reach.
It is very detailed research and I will leave it to you to draw your
own conclusion. But I will tell you this, it reads better than any spy
thriller Hollywood could cook up. You will be amazed at the tangled web.
But here’s a spoiler that will be revealed if you read the full report: If
Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian
branches of al-Qaida two years after the Syrian FSA was thoroughly
corrupted by al-Qaida, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.
Read this at your leisure, but give it least 20 minutes to carefully comprehend what is written and piece it all together.I am truly honored this group would entrust me to share it with you all. You may see the original text here,
with all the source links intact from the Conservative Tree House, or
you can read the story of Operation Zero Footprint below:We now have a pretty good understanding of who, what, where, and why
surrounding the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi Libya.
We are also better positioned to understand why, or perhaps more
importantly why not, certain actions were taken before, during, and in
the immediate aftermath of the attack itself.We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she
was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the
night of the attack.Unfortunately we also know during the November 2012 Thanksgiving
holiday a mysterious fire took place in that building. Well, actually
directly above her exact office – cause undetermined.A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the
Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a
blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a
Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we
also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama
signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to
begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.We know the “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places.
Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Eastern Libya.We know this covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero
Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not
(important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.

We know by the time operation “Zero
Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from
OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James
G. Stavridis was in charge.Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013.In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan
intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey
played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect
of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection
of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons
from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided
the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public
scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as
the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby
removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the
State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign
Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the
2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any
military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter
Ham.However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary
Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely
unaware of the operation, this aspect remains murky.Both Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place
when Operation Zero Footprint began but retired from their jobs in Sept
of 2011, and were replaced by Chuck Hagel and Martin Dempsey
respectively.Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero
Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus
in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary
of Defense.However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two
who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012.
Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State
Dept/Cia mission in Benghazi, Dempsey may not have.We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence
Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of
Zero Footprint.The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John
Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select
Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart
Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane
Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for
Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero
Footprint was National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW”
of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011
through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint?”

Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was
involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar).Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:

*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially
recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013. Khattala recently
having been arrested.In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional
Government Justice MinisterMustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included
in this list of people who knew of operation Zero Footprint while it was
underway.Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and
spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris
Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in
my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was
paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once
Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:
To wit you can easily add:

CIA Director General David Petraeus

Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel

U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder

President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough

President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew

President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin

Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice

Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes

Focusing on the post 9/11/12 team for a moment:

PART II –

We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on
the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President
Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was
Chief of Staff at the time.

In addition we know from former White House National Security
spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the
situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on
events.Here’s where it gets interesting:Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was
authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June
30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept
2011).Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO
liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint
State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If
it blew up, it was not his political problem.We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistleblower” popped up
and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director
General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named
Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified
information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.We also know that Eric Cantor told AG Eric Holder and FBI director
Robert Mueller about the claim and Mueller began an investigation of
Petraeus in the Summer of 2012 before the Benghazi attack in September.However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor)
informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking
place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer
to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did
reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus
resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This
is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his
place.

We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton
and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them
than Petraeus.Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and
worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk
to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk
himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s
important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White
House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who
constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.

After Morrel testified to congress
about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism
vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the
CIA by John Brennan.We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike
Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the
brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the
Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric
Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus
investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible
suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove
Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.
If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in,
“Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and
Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White
House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint
State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi
attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about
Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment
avoidance makes perfect sense.Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.

Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and
DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE
IMPORTANT because it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put
herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House
kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert
operation:[...] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes
on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some
country other than the US should perform any future training and
equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional
probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission
to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the
US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US
military going forward.
Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries
have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if
there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there
are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates.
“Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that
future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active
role in airstrikes as time goes on.From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the
discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you
have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:2011 [...] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small
teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment
on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the
CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a
crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts
said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the
opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the
event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them.In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and
Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having
authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta
carrying it out.The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.

We now know against the March/April
2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within
the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether
even getting involved was a good idea.The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral
James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what
he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates,
*knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons
delivery possible*:2011 – [...] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the
possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani
network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to
be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to
be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the
description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis.There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology
within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important
because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part
of the team coordinating the shipments.Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 timeframe is when
“Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our
engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to
fully support “the rebels”.Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc
(State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really
accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.
Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but
the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political
filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White
House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is
ever publicly wrong.If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly
what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact
escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publicly wrong.

It should be noted, and actually
emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not
illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his
constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential
Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in
actions within Libya to identify a course of action.We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon
Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President
Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of
the weapons transfer operation.Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office
following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss
the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was
terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence
information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who
would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically
providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and
Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint,
there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology
of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in
mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions)
flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.
From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to
pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House
goal in the entire region.

Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable
policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and
election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White
House.However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious
split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as
Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department
saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton
going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with
Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East
nation – again in March/April 2011.We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.
The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.

The TNC may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2014), a hotbed of
radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the
very people who benefitted from the arms that were part of Zero
Footprint.We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were
joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the
Spring/Summer.December 2011 – New York Times:
“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American
desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with
Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar
with the proposal.
The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms
stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has
been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each
missile and its components has not been determined, the official said.We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro
in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint
weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was
killed:“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the
TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we
immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task
Force to Benghazi.
Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of
our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in
Libya.
[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the
TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would
enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable
loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately
deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian
technical specialists.”We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in
August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State
Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a
specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.
If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a
secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking
through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political
consequences.But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the
details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly
guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA
(Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would
expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood
and other Islamist militias.But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of
2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse –
much worse.

The uprising in Syria was only a few
months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were
reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and
Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to
be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous,
and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on
the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.
The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much.Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van
Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the
Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary
Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to
topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya
made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor
against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford
to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given
arms that ultimately might be used against them.There’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of
funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And
the White House was not about to do aknown and official covert operation
which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too
politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.Unless of course, you’re a Clinton.Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton?
That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea
came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly
and illegally.Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.Arming jihadist fighters in Syria without congressional
approval, and without official covert notification laws being followed,
*WAS* illegal.Everything Iran-Contra was -and was not- can be rolled up with a big exclamation point.We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.Turkey would be used as an intermediary, and the U.S. had Sunni
friends in Saudi Arabia -who were more than willing to see Assad
removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a
concern for what could happen to Israel.For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, without going
through congress, would involve buying back the weapons already floating
around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirecting them to Syria
through Turkey.The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.

We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up
a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012. And
we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in
Benghazi around the same time.The official U.S. State Dept presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011
when the embassy personell were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing
the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012
reconstruction phase.What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also
acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through
Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria.A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a
CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State
Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their
visible cover.In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan
Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all
of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the
2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the
Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their
Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of the shipments.But there was in 2011/2012 – an ideological rift between the newly
emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free
Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer
of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the
Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.By the time Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for
Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside
the FSA. Arguably they were the majority element. The Syrian opposition
had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also
operated in Libya:

Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;

Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an
extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and
operating in Yemen and Libya;

Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues that any
diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain
was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013.

Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the
surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global
attention.

And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march
in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was
armed by the U.S. inside Syria; and trained by the same CIA operatives
used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah
back in Libya.If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the
Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly
corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.But that’s hindsight for ya… or as Secretary Clinton would say
“Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?“By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is
operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly
like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus.
According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and
ammunition to the rebels.”We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al
Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is
carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as
rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air
missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from
Iskenderun.The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim
Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.More to come…